Quote:
|
By the way, a coupe is not a "turn away" from democracy. It is the exact opposite - a seizure of power by a minority, usually the military. How can you say that the "people" rejected democracy when the military declares martial law and seizes the reins of government?
|
If you read the intellectual thinking of the time you'll begin to understand it.
Quote:
|
I fail to see the relavence of Nasser's seizure of power in Eqypt with the Baathist's seizure in Iraq unless you want to open the discussion to US foreign policy in the late 50's and early 60's.
|
Maybe it was because of the decade of anti-democratic propoganda Nasser spread throughout Iraq. It is
very relevant outside of US policy, Nasser led the Arab world to a vision of unified Arab Socialism which though failed ended up turning much of them away from the liberal ideas that were until then predominant. Everytime Nasser made a speach proclaiming Arab unity it would create riots in Iraq and Jordan, and led to the overthrow of the monarchy in Syria.
Quote:
|
Your arguement still falls short of finding a free and fair election in the Middle East. Three coupes do not an election make, to coin a phrase.
|
You fail to understand that Egypt was not a simple coupe. While it may have started that way it became something entirely different. Even after the disasterous '67 war Nasser remained so popular they riotted when he left office for him to return. This alone proves that it was NOT a mere coup.
His popularity caused a Revolution in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Yemen. His message of anti-democratic socialistic state was embraced by the people. THIS is why it matters, THIS is why you should read the intellectual readings at the time in order to understand the mindset of the people. The people were not merely people oppressed (though much of it went on), but the actual leaders of change.